Plymouth Glassblowing House restaurant company wound up owing £500,000

A FIRM which ran a city restaurant is being wound up, owing nearly half a million pounds.

The Glassblowing House Ltd, which ran the well-known Barbican restaurant of the same name, is being voluntarily wound up, owing almost £500,000 to 16 creditors.

The company, which was ordered to pay just under £60,000 to a former employee following an Employment Tribunal, was refused an extension of time in which to present a Notice of Appeal.

This means The Glassblowing House Ltd cannot appeal against the ruling.

The restaurant will stay open after being sold to Barbican Restaurants Ltd, which has the same address and director, Ed Steven, as The Glassblowing House Ltd, as listed on Government Website Companies House.

In the Glassblowing House Ltd directors' report to the creditors it says that the company ceased trading on July 7 last year.

Within the report it says: "The current year saw a marked increase in the number of restaurants trading within the Plymouth area especially a number of branded chains with a larger marketing capability.

"The company could have traded through this difficult period however it was hit by what it considered to be an...unfair...decision by the Employment Tribunal.

"There was also a liability to HMRC which was being negotiated with the belief that it would be settled from future trading receipts, the above action prevented any payment plan from being formalised."

However, the list of company creditors shows that almost £500,000 is owed to 16 creditors, including more than £200,000 to HMRC for VAT, PAYE and CORP payments.

Npower is owed £29,658 and Plymouth City Council is owed £24,320.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is owed £52,000 and Martin Withers, the Employment Tribunal claimant, is owed £64,000, according to the report.

In respect of the voluntary liquidation of The Glassblowing House Ltd, Mr Steven said:

"This whole saga has been very unfortunate and unnecessary and many people and businesses have been adversely affected."

Mr Steven said he believed the situation highlighted broader questions about small businesses having to go through the tribunal service.

However, he added that he welcomed recent legislation he believes addresses these problems.

"The good news for Plymouth and its waterfront is that under its new operators The Glassblowing House is doing a fantastic job and is going from strength to strength contributing towards Plymouth's vibrant tourism and leisure sector," he added.

Angela Withers, wife of Martin Withers, who was awarded compensation at the Employment Tribunal said: "We attended the creditors meeting and we raised a number of questions with regard to the sale of the goodwill, chattels and assets of the Glassblowing House Restaurant from one company that Mr Ed Steven was a director of to another company that he set up this year.

"We believe this is simply not fair. We have written to our MP Oliver Colvile in the hope that he will be able to help us challenge the current laws that allow this practice, within Parliament."

PLEA FOR MORE TIME TO APPEAL IS REFUSED

THE Glassblowing House Ltd has been refused an extension of time to appeal the decision of an Employment Tribunal which ordered it to pay £60,000 to a former employee.

The company, which lodged an appeal against the Employment Tribunal Judgment, was refused an extension of time in which to present a Notice of Appeal.

The outcome from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) outlines that any notice of appeal should be lodged within 42 days of the judgement.

The appeal was lodged 105 days late by The Glassblowing House Ltd.

The EAT states: "The appellant company applies for an extension of time in which to appeal a judgement promulgated on April 24, 2013.

"The final date for appeal was June 5 2013.

"The appeal was received on September 18 2013."

The EAT statement outlines that representatives for The Glassblowing House Ltd said they sent the appeal to the employment tribunal because staff there advised that was the appropriate venue.

The Registrar in Chambers Ms P Donleavy in the EAT states: "I find that hard to accept.

"The company was sent a copy of the Judgement letter which clearly gives the address to which appeals should be sent.

"Six weeks is a generous time limit and it is set so that appellants who find procedures challenging may comply.

"Merely putting 'appeal from the employment tribunal' into the Google search engine will bring up links to the EAT web pages with their comprehensive advice as the first result.

"It is apparent that the officers did no research and did not read the Judgement booklet and made no effort to find out the correct process for appeal.

"The appellant lodged its appeal at the wrong address on the last day of the time limit.

"It made no enquiries in respect of the appeal for some months.

"No explanation is given as to why the company delayed until the last day to lodge its appeal.

"The company is not out of time because it sent the appeal to the wrong address but because it lodged the appeal so late that there was no time to correct any errors or omissions.

"I see no reason to extend time."

Speaking on behalf of The Glassblowing House, director Ed Steven said: "We believe the tribunal ruling and the absurd amount of money awarded were grossly unfair.

"The appeal process has several strands, including requests for time extensions and requests for further evidence to be submitted.

"We remain in contact with the Employment Tribunal Service and are determined to use all avenues of appeal."

The Herald has learned that no further appeal has been made by the Glassblowing House Ltd against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Angela Withers said: "Martin and I are extremely happy with the EAT Registrar's decision not to allow the Glassblowing House Ltd a late appeal.

"When making their decision the EAT registrar advised that Mr Steven had the knowledge and resources available to him to have submitted the appeal on time and to the correct address.

"Mr Steven did not follow the laid down procedures."

"The Employment Tribunal claim and judgement were legal.

"My husband was subjected to disability discrimination.

"The judgement of £59,071.50 reflects the disability discrimination, a loss of earnings as the tribunal took 18 months to be heard and future loss of earnings to take into account the current economic climate and an award for the detrimental effect this decision had on Martin's health."